Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is questioning the legality of the appointment of the respondent No. 7 as Professor of Culture in the Department of Philosophy under the North Eastern Hill University. At the very outset, it may be noted that the copy of the impugned letter is not even annexed to this writ petition. It is contended by Mr. S. Sen, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-University that the petitioner is not even a contender for the post in question and, as such, he has no locus standi to file this writ petition, in support of his contention, he relies on the decisions of the Apex Court Ghulam Quadir v. Special Tribunal (2002) 1 SCC and Mani Subrat Jain v. State of Haryana [1977] 2 SCR 361. The contentions of Mr. P. Dey, the learned Counsel for the private respondent are also duly noted which are in pari materia with those of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University. On the other hand, Mr. K. Paul, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, strenuously urges that even though the petitioner is not a contender for the post in question, bearing in mind the gravity of the illegality and arbitrariness apparent on the